Tweet
A1+
CONCLUSIONS OF MEDIA DIVERSITY IN ARMENIA
[05:04 pm] 10 July, 2008
On July 8, 2008 in Yerevan a conference was held on `Media Diversity
in Armenia', organized by the Council of Europe, OSCE and Yerevan
Press Club. The conference participants, representatives of media,
professional associations, official structures and political parties
of Armenia, international organizations and diplomatic missions
discussed the urgent issues of the media of the country: the
priorities of media legislation reformation; the role of broadcasting
regulation in ensuring diversity of opinion; the tasks of media
owners, professional communities and journalists to attain real
pluralism in the news sphere.
The problems that were manifest recently in the work of the media,
primarily the broadcasters, were reflected in many documents on
national and international levels. In the ruling of the RA
Constitutional Court of March 8, 2008 it was noted that in the course
of presidential elections, held on February 19, 2008, `effective
control of pre-election promotion was left out of the RA CEC
attention'. As regards the body that regulates the broadcast media
activities, the ruling of the Constitutional Court said that `National
Commission on Television and Radio was formalistic in terms of
complying with the law. As a result of this the media coverage
displayed not only bias, but also, in some cases, violations of legal
and ethical norms'.
The extraordinary report of the RA Human Rights Defender Armen
Harutyunyan, published on April 25, 2008 and titled `On Presidential
Elections of February 19, 2008 and Post-Election Situation' described,
among other issues, the situation of free expression and media in
Armenia. Addressing the pre-election processes, the ombudsman stressed
the "strongly critical nature' of the coverage the TV companies gave
to one of the presidential candidates. While after the official launch
of the pre-election campaign the consequent political bias was
mitigated, yet `this did not influence the situation
qualitatively'. While presenting the post-election situation, the RA
Human Rights Defender characterized the coverage of the opposition
rallies by the TV companies as `openly negative'. The TV companies
continued presenting the viewpoint of only the pro-governmental
politicians. During the emergency rule (March 1-20, 2008) `factual
censorship was implemented', the report by Armen Harutyunyan said,
although it is prohibited by Article 4 of the RA Law `On Mass
Communication' and was not stipulated by the restrictions provided for
by the Decree of the RA President on Imposing Emergency Rule. As a
result, `the publication of several national newspapers was prohibited
for their content', web sites were also blocked. In the opinion of
Armen Harutyunyan, the restrictions imposed by the Decree did not
contribute to relieving the tension in the society, either: `A most
vivid example of such unacceptable coverage was demonstrated by the
First Channel of the Public Television of Armenia, which not only
neglected this provision of the Decree, but also once again made a
grave infringement of the requirement of Article 28 of the RA Law `On
Television and Radio': `The prevalence of a political stance in the
programs broadcast (...) on public television (...) is
prohibited'. The RA Human Rights Defender proposed a number of
measures to overcome the situation in place, including: `To ensure
freedom of expression; create conditions to ensure diversity of
opinion and impartiality in electronic media. In this regard, the
reformation of the broadcasting legislation will have much
significance. It is also necessary to guarantee the equal
participation of the representatives of power and opposition in the
formation of the bodies, regulating and controlling the activities of
TV and radio companies.' The documents above stress the need for
practical steps to strengthen media freedom and diversity in
Armenia. This issue was also raised in the two recent PACE
resolutions. On April 17, 2008 the PACE approved Resolution 1609
(2008) `The Functioning of Democratic Institutions in Armenia'. In
Paragraph 8 of its Resolution PACE recalled the commitments of Armenia
to the Council of Europe and once again urged the Armenian authorities
to make a number of reforms. In particular, Paragraph 8.3 of the
Resolution says: `The independence from any political interest of both
National Commission on Television and Radio and the Council of Public
Television and Radio must be guaranteed. In addition, the composition
of these bodies should be revised in order to ensure that they are
truly representative of Armenian society.The recommendations made by
the Venice Commission and Council of Europe experts in this respect
must finally be taken into account. The Assembly reiterates that apart
from reforming the legislation, the authorities must take steps to
ensure freedom and pluralism of the public television and radio on a
day-to-day basis. Also, the harassment by the tax authorities of
opposition electronic and printed media outlets must be stopped.' On
June 25, 2008 Resolution 1620 (2008) `The Implementation by Armenia of
Assembly Resolution 1609 (2008)' was adopted, quoting the four main
requirements of the Resolution 1609 (2008) of April 17, 2008, also
that `to initiate an open and serious dialogue between all political
forces in Armenia' with regard to a number of issues, including
freedom and pluralism of the media (Paragraph 1.4 of Resolution
1620). Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1620 (2008) says: `The Assembly
recalls that there is a need for a pluralistic electronic media
environment in Armenia and, referring to the decision of the European
Court of Human Rights concerning the denial of broadcasting license to
`A1+', calls on the licensing authority to now ensure an open, fair
and transparent licensing procedure, in line with the guidelines,
adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on
March 26, 2008 and with the case law of the European Court of Human
Rights.' As it was mentioned by the experts in the conference `Media
Diversity in Armenia', those problems were hardly a surprise. They
were a consequence of inconsistent reforms and insufficient attention
to the recommendations of local and foreign experts, representatives
of reputable international organizations. On July 26, 2006 the OSCE
Representative on Freedom of the Media Miklos Haraszti released a
report on the state of media freedom in Armenia, also presenting
recommendations on the improvement of media freedom situation in the
country. Noting that limited pluralism in the broadcasting sector was
a major problem, as a first step to improve the state of broadcasting
Miklos Haraszti recommended that `legislative changes provided for by
the Constitutional amendment should be prepared by the Government,
discussed in a public forum with members of civil society, and passed
in Parliament as soon as possible, certainly before the Parliamentary
elections in 2007. However, legislative changes should not be limited
to a `half Presidential - half Parliamentary' board. The composition
of all boards should represent the political and social diversity of
the country, and should include NGOs and professional
associations'. As to public service broadcasting, in the opinion of
the OSCE Representative, the members of its regulatory body - the
Council of Public TV and Radio Company - `should not be selected by
one political force or by political forces alone'.The selection
criteria, the report stresses, should reflect transparency and ensure
both a high level of professionalism and pluralism of reflected
views. In order to fulfill the tasks of a genuine public service
broadcaster, the Council should carry out continuous monitoring of
access of different parties to air time and coverage of their
activities, the results of which should be made public. Among the
recommendations on private broadcasting the report noted the need for
such amendments of the Law `On Television and Radio' that would be
clear about broadcast licensing competition procedures: `The selection
criteria must include the interests of pluralism; the licensing
process must become more transparent, using more quantifiable, thus
publicly controllable benchmarks. 'Despite the anti-monopoly provision
in the broadcast Law stipulating that `each physical or legal entity
can be licensed only for one Television and Radio Company', in Armenia
there are people who own several broadcasting companies, which, in
their turn, share the same buildings and staff members. `This means
that there aren't any guarantees for pluralism in ownership, which, in
any society, is the foundation for a pluralistic access to
information', Miklos Haraszti stressed in his report. The conference
discussions showed that there is an urgent need for reforms to improve
media plurality. In particular there was a unanimous opinion that the
law and practice of broadcast media regulation needs to be brought in
line with Council of Europe standards. The agenda of this and other
necessary reforms has already been defined over the past years in the
above mentioned documents and commonly accepted assessment of media
situation in Armenia. The fulfillment of this agenda will enable
Armenia to comply with the requirements of PACE Resolutions 1609
(2008) and 1620 (2008) in time for the January 2009 session. To ensure
success of this process there is a need for an open and serious
dialogue which involves the country's authorities, international and
local experts, civil society and all political forces.
CONCLUSIONS OF MEDIA DIVERSITY IN ARMENIA
[05:04 pm] 10 July, 2008
On July 8, 2008 in Yerevan a conference was held on `Media Diversity
in Armenia', organized by the Council of Europe, OSCE and Yerevan
Press Club. The conference participants, representatives of media,
professional associations, official structures and political parties
of Armenia, international organizations and diplomatic missions
discussed the urgent issues of the media of the country: the
priorities of media legislation reformation; the role of broadcasting
regulation in ensuring diversity of opinion; the tasks of media
owners, professional communities and journalists to attain real
pluralism in the news sphere.
The problems that were manifest recently in the work of the media,
primarily the broadcasters, were reflected in many documents on
national and international levels. In the ruling of the RA
Constitutional Court of March 8, 2008 it was noted that in the course
of presidential elections, held on February 19, 2008, `effective
control of pre-election promotion was left out of the RA CEC
attention'. As regards the body that regulates the broadcast media
activities, the ruling of the Constitutional Court said that `National
Commission on Television and Radio was formalistic in terms of
complying with the law. As a result of this the media coverage
displayed not only bias, but also, in some cases, violations of legal
and ethical norms'.
The extraordinary report of the RA Human Rights Defender Armen
Harutyunyan, published on April 25, 2008 and titled `On Presidential
Elections of February 19, 2008 and Post-Election Situation' described,
among other issues, the situation of free expression and media in
Armenia. Addressing the pre-election processes, the ombudsman stressed
the "strongly critical nature' of the coverage the TV companies gave
to one of the presidential candidates. While after the official launch
of the pre-election campaign the consequent political bias was
mitigated, yet `this did not influence the situation
qualitatively'. While presenting the post-election situation, the RA
Human Rights Defender characterized the coverage of the opposition
rallies by the TV companies as `openly negative'. The TV companies
continued presenting the viewpoint of only the pro-governmental
politicians. During the emergency rule (March 1-20, 2008) `factual
censorship was implemented', the report by Armen Harutyunyan said,
although it is prohibited by Article 4 of the RA Law `On Mass
Communication' and was not stipulated by the restrictions provided for
by the Decree of the RA President on Imposing Emergency Rule. As a
result, `the publication of several national newspapers was prohibited
for their content', web sites were also blocked. In the opinion of
Armen Harutyunyan, the restrictions imposed by the Decree did not
contribute to relieving the tension in the society, either: `A most
vivid example of such unacceptable coverage was demonstrated by the
First Channel of the Public Television of Armenia, which not only
neglected this provision of the Decree, but also once again made a
grave infringement of the requirement of Article 28 of the RA Law `On
Television and Radio': `The prevalence of a political stance in the
programs broadcast (...) on public television (...) is
prohibited'. The RA Human Rights Defender proposed a number of
measures to overcome the situation in place, including: `To ensure
freedom of expression; create conditions to ensure diversity of
opinion and impartiality in electronic media. In this regard, the
reformation of the broadcasting legislation will have much
significance. It is also necessary to guarantee the equal
participation of the representatives of power and opposition in the
formation of the bodies, regulating and controlling the activities of
TV and radio companies.' The documents above stress the need for
practical steps to strengthen media freedom and diversity in
Armenia. This issue was also raised in the two recent PACE
resolutions. On April 17, 2008 the PACE approved Resolution 1609
(2008) `The Functioning of Democratic Institutions in Armenia'. In
Paragraph 8 of its Resolution PACE recalled the commitments of Armenia
to the Council of Europe and once again urged the Armenian authorities
to make a number of reforms. In particular, Paragraph 8.3 of the
Resolution says: `The independence from any political interest of both
National Commission on Television and Radio and the Council of Public
Television and Radio must be guaranteed. In addition, the composition
of these bodies should be revised in order to ensure that they are
truly representative of Armenian society.The recommendations made by
the Venice Commission and Council of Europe experts in this respect
must finally be taken into account. The Assembly reiterates that apart
from reforming the legislation, the authorities must take steps to
ensure freedom and pluralism of the public television and radio on a
day-to-day basis. Also, the harassment by the tax authorities of
opposition electronic and printed media outlets must be stopped.' On
June 25, 2008 Resolution 1620 (2008) `The Implementation by Armenia of
Assembly Resolution 1609 (2008)' was adopted, quoting the four main
requirements of the Resolution 1609 (2008) of April 17, 2008, also
that `to initiate an open and serious dialogue between all political
forces in Armenia' with regard to a number of issues, including
freedom and pluralism of the media (Paragraph 1.4 of Resolution
1620). Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1620 (2008) says: `The Assembly
recalls that there is a need for a pluralistic electronic media
environment in Armenia and, referring to the decision of the European
Court of Human Rights concerning the denial of broadcasting license to
`A1+', calls on the licensing authority to now ensure an open, fair
and transparent licensing procedure, in line with the guidelines,
adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on
March 26, 2008 and with the case law of the European Court of Human
Rights.' As it was mentioned by the experts in the conference `Media
Diversity in Armenia', those problems were hardly a surprise. They
were a consequence of inconsistent reforms and insufficient attention
to the recommendations of local and foreign experts, representatives
of reputable international organizations. On July 26, 2006 the OSCE
Representative on Freedom of the Media Miklos Haraszti released a
report on the state of media freedom in Armenia, also presenting
recommendations on the improvement of media freedom situation in the
country. Noting that limited pluralism in the broadcasting sector was
a major problem, as a first step to improve the state of broadcasting
Miklos Haraszti recommended that `legislative changes provided for by
the Constitutional amendment should be prepared by the Government,
discussed in a public forum with members of civil society, and passed
in Parliament as soon as possible, certainly before the Parliamentary
elections in 2007. However, legislative changes should not be limited
to a `half Presidential - half Parliamentary' board. The composition
of all boards should represent the political and social diversity of
the country, and should include NGOs and professional
associations'. As to public service broadcasting, in the opinion of
the OSCE Representative, the members of its regulatory body - the
Council of Public TV and Radio Company - `should not be selected by
one political force or by political forces alone'.The selection
criteria, the report stresses, should reflect transparency and ensure
both a high level of professionalism and pluralism of reflected
views. In order to fulfill the tasks of a genuine public service
broadcaster, the Council should carry out continuous monitoring of
access of different parties to air time and coverage of their
activities, the results of which should be made public. Among the
recommendations on private broadcasting the report noted the need for
such amendments of the Law `On Television and Radio' that would be
clear about broadcast licensing competition procedures: `The selection
criteria must include the interests of pluralism; the licensing
process must become more transparent, using more quantifiable, thus
publicly controllable benchmarks. 'Despite the anti-monopoly provision
in the broadcast Law stipulating that `each physical or legal entity
can be licensed only for one Television and Radio Company', in Armenia
there are people who own several broadcasting companies, which, in
their turn, share the same buildings and staff members. `This means
that there aren't any guarantees for pluralism in ownership, which, in
any society, is the foundation for a pluralistic access to
information', Miklos Haraszti stressed in his report. The conference
discussions showed that there is an urgent need for reforms to improve
media plurality. In particular there was a unanimous opinion that the
law and practice of broadcast media regulation needs to be brought in
line with Council of Europe standards. The agenda of this and other
necessary reforms has already been defined over the past years in the
above mentioned documents and commonly accepted assessment of media
situation in Armenia. The fulfillment of this agenda will enable
Armenia to comply with the requirements of PACE Resolutions 1609
(2008) and 1620 (2008) in time for the January 2009 session. To ensure
success of this process there is a need for an open and serious
dialogue which involves the country's authorities, international and
local experts, civil society and all political forces.